Skip to main content

tv   Eyewitness 11PM News  CBS  January 23, 2013 11:00pm-11:35pm EST

11:00 pm
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with secretary of state hillary clinton on capitol hill. answering tough questions about what happened in benghazi libya, when four americans were killed. joining us david ignatius of "washington post." and michael gordon of the "new york times." >> what today provided was the drama of secretary clinton in her final major appearance defending herself defending the administration and getting very emotional and very feisty. and i think what we took away from this was how intense feelings are on both sides. the republicans really went after her today, and she-- she-- she pushed back hard. >> rose: we conclude this evening with the a look at the surprising elections in israel with david remnick, mort zuckerman, and dennis ross. >> i don't want us to be deluded and think because lapid somehow
11:01 pm
got an outsized amount of votes suddenly the country has moved dramatically to the left. it has not. it has not. and i think we need to have a more tragic sense of what's going on in terms of the palestinian question, which is the one that concerns us the most. certainly it is in the top three of the big questions about israel. and there's not going to be dramatic movement on that at all. >> rose: what happened in benghazi, and the israeli elections when we continue.
11:02 pm
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with secretary of state clinton on capitol hill. lawmakers questions her earlier today about the september 11, 2012 attacks on the american consulate in benghazi, libya. four americans were killed that day, including ambassador christopher stevens. secretary clinton's testimony had been post toned until now. she took responsibility and emsized her commitment to improving diplomat security abroad.
11:03 pm
>> as i have mentioned many times i take responsibility and nobody is more committed to getting this right. i am determined to leave the state department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure. now, taking responsibility meant moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis, but, also to further protect our people posts in high-threat areas across the region and the world. it meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly what happened in benghazi and to recommend steps for improvement and it meant intensifying our efforts to cat combat terrorism and figure out effective ways to support emerging democracies in north africa and beyond. >> rose: she was overcome with emotion as she recalled receiving the bodies of the deceased service members. >> for me this is not just a matter of policy. it's personal. i stood next to president obama as the marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at andrews.
11:04 pm
i put my arms around the mothers and fathers the sisters and brothers, the sons and daughters, and the wives left alone to raise their children. >> rose: questions about the accuracy of the administration's initial depiction of the events elicited a heated response. >> the fact is we had four dead americans. >> i understand. >> was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out fair walk one night who decided they'd go kill some americans. what difference at this point does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from everything happening again senator. >> rose: secretary clinton's testimony today may be her last major appearance in a diplomatic role. she hands over the reigns to senator john kerry after his confirmation. joining me now from washington, david ignatius of the "washington post." later we'll talk to michael gordon of the "new york times." david, as you watched this today, did it answer all the questions? >> well, it was-- it was a very lively exchange. most of the answers in truth
11:05 pm
have come out in the details, the report by the accountability review board, and the systematic timeline that it offered. what today provided was the drama of secretary clinton and her final major appearance defending herself defending the administration, and getting very emotional and very feisty. and i think what we took away from this was how intense feelings are on both sides. the republicans really went after her today and she-- she-- she pushed back hard. >> rose: did they as they say,a lay a glove on her? >> well, i think on the basic issues here, benghazi, the republicans have a point. as the accountability review board report says, staffing for diplomat security was grossly inadequate. repeated requests came from benghazi for more diplomatic security officers to go to benghazi and guard that very
11:06 pm
ill-constructed compound. nothing happened. the decisions taken by the ambassador who tragically died, chris stevens were-- were-- were-- were unfortunate looking back. he shouldn't have been in benghazi in the way he was on that day, september 11. and then finally senator mccain stressed why wasn't there some u.s. military power available to come to the rescue of the people who were trapped in the embassy annex so that people wouldn't have ended up dying on the roof essentially unable to protect themselves against the mortar fire they were taking. and you could see, he's still angry about it. >> rose: the other thing he considered unacceptable was her response with senator johnson when she said, "what difference does it make?" >> i thought that was an especially poignant response
11:07 pm
from secretary clinton. and it reflected an uncertainty to this day i'm told among intelligence officers who have reviewed the evidence they have of what happened that night believing it or not they still don't know precisely how that attack came to happen. they know there were terrorists who were associated with al qaeda, were part of the group. they know there were others who kind of wandered into the scene. and when secretary clinton said "what difference does it make exactly how it came together, let's find it and punish them." she was speaking out of frustration but also out of this uncertainty that's in the intelligence itself. >> rose: there is also this notion that secretary clinton did not read a cable, which she acknowledged. >> well she-- she, she said that the requests that came in for more diplomatic security in benghazi had not come to her
11:08 pm
attention. she said that that's ordinary standard procedure for it to be handled at lower levels, but the buck stops with her. what happened in benghazi showed that the state department wasn't taking security seriously enough. four people ended up losing their jobs because of it. the republicans have wanted to take accountability to a higher level-- namely, to secretary clinton-- and they had their chance to do taid to do it, at least rhetorically. >> rose: there was a question of whether they were fired or whether they were simply suspended. what's the right answer? >> yes, there's a technical detail. it varies with the different people precisely what it was. but it was not as emphatic as the republicans would like to say. they had like to see more scalps, if you will. they'd like to see people punished in a more visible way and accountability go higher. >> rose: do you have any sense that the secretary wanted to avoid this? my imtregz pregz was she knew it was out there and she might have been eager to come in and make her case and fully in front of
11:09 pm
the american people, as well as those members of the house and senate that she took responsibility and they planned to implement the reforms, giving her a forum to say what she said separately but in different places. >> she came prepared today to be very aggressive in defending herself and the department. i thought she looked clearly as if she'd recovered from the-- the-- the-- the fall that she'd had and the-- the -- >> rose: cop cushion. >> the concussion that she'd had. she looked good. she was very aggressive and emphatic. it was long testimony before the two senate and house. did she look forward to a chance to defend herself? i can't imagine this would have been the way she would have chosen to leave the most visible thing before the american public before she leaves after what many, even manycritics have said was a
11:10 pm
distinguished period as secretary of state. she leaves under a bit of a cloud with the republicans really coming after her. i've wondered, carl are charlie was bloody the secretary a little bit in anticipation she's going to be a candidate in 2016, and they're going to lay down this marker that as secretary of state she may have done a lot of good things, but on her record is benghazi. >> rose: what did she accomplish as secretary of state? >> well first, i think she did the basic job of representing the united states abroad tirelessly and well. she was very good in public forums. she would-- when she visited countries like pakistan, meet with audiencees take questions, be very visible. as secretary she did not have a record of substantial negotiation-- a la henry
11:11 pm
kissinger, jim baker. it's hard to find things like that on in her record but on representational side, very strong performance. also in terms of being loyal to president obama. the obama white house was concerned in the beginning that this superstar part of team clinton, was going to over-shadow the president and the white house. they were very controlling sometimes in how they methods foreign policy but secretary clinton never stepped on anybody's toes. she always left it to the president to take the lead on things. so i think that was a sign that she was a team player. i find, charlie more people from both parties today saying that they thought she did a good job, and that she showed that she has real depth. then you would have found four years ago. >> rose: clearly it enhanced her reputation. >> i think so. >> rose: when you look forward to the service of john kerry assuming what most people
11:12 pm
believe the obvious confirmation because he's of the senate himself, will he be a different secretary of state? >> would expect charlie that you'll see a little bit more of the back-channel negotiating style that we associate with a kissinger or jim bake frer senator kerry. he thinks that we need a period of quiet can diplomacy to explore options, to see if there's some way to negotiate some kind of deal over the nuclear issue with iran, to explore some way with russia to get a negotiated political transition in syria. and i think he is a believer in in-- in the back-channel side of being secretary of state. so that will be a different tone. he's also going to be like senator clinton a well-known, kind of, you know former presidential level candidate for the united states.
11:13 pm
>> rose: we continue our conversation about the hearings today in washington request are with michael gordon of the "new york times." michael, you know secretary clinton and you also know senator kerry who is likely to be confirmed as secretary of state. will there be a difference? i think there will be a lot of continuity on substance. she had a persona as a global figure and a certain degree of charisma that i think she'll he'll lack. and she did play a role as the obama administration would assert in restoring the american image, but i think there will be more points of continuity than discontinuity. >> rose: how do you assess her four years? >> >> well, i think she was good at restoring the american image. i think she trafd a lot. she went to 112 countries. i think she had some success in asia. but i don't think she or the obama administration has many notable diplomatic
11:14 pm
accomplishiments. the syria problem is-- seemed. the middle east situation seems pretty much stalled out. can. >> rose: do you believe benghazi will be a cirrus law on her record? >> i think it is a flaw. but i don't think it will be a lasting flaw. it was a systemic breakdown. there was an independent review that established there was a lot of culpability of a lot of people on the sixth floor of the state department, but she was on the seventh floor and certainly, her posture has been she accepts responsibility for what happened but not blame, and that's pret much what played out
11:15 pm
today in two hearings. she was uncharacteristically emotional in describing the death of the four americans. so i don't think it's going to be an impediment to what everybody assumes are her longer term political ambitions to run for the presidency. >> rose: what struck you about the testimony today that was noteworthy? >> well, there was very little that shed new light on the white house role. you know, there was an independent review conducted of what the-- how the state department handled it because it's required by statute. there's no such statute for how the n.s.c. handled it. it would be interesting if there was. i don't think woe learned a lot about that or why the pentagon was so ill prepared, had no forces in region on the anniversary of 9/11. but, you know, i think it was largely a political exercise for republicans trying-- they know who she is and what her broader aspirations are likely to be. and they tried to rebuke her, and i think she handled herds
11:16 pm
pretty deftly under the circumstances. and she, for example, defended susan rice while at the same time suddenly distancing herself from ambassador rice's comment. >> rose: basically saying we don't know. is that what she said? >> well what, she said was ambassador rice shouldn't be faulted for saying the attack was sort of stemmed from a protest in front of compound but then she pointed out she secretary which the had not in fact made such assertions and from the beginning blamed it on militants. i think her statement was pretty carefully prepared. and, again, she starts off by take responsibility and saying she's implementing all of the recommendations but she makes clear she didn't see the numerous cables that came in.
11:17 pm
that was the point of predict with the lawmakers. they wanted to know how someone who was taking responsibility could at the same time say she was distanced from all of the requests coming in from libya. >> rose: clearly there are questions, you know, about the future of iraq how do you think they view our role around the world? >> if you're asking me, i think president obama thought united states was over-extended military low, not just in terms of the sheer number of troops but in terms of the exposure and risk to american interests. and i think the white house is essentially agnorfolk-- aggnostic of the value on maintaining a minimal force in iraq. in the end they were talking about a force of 3,000 to 5,000 including special operations. but i think the way they played the iraq end game didn't work out well from an american standpoint and it's one reason iran has been flying hundreds of
11:18 pm
tons of arms to the assad regime through iraqi airspace because there's basically a security vacuum in iraq right now from an international standpoint. >> rose: david what, do you think about the next four years? >> i think president obama made clear during the campaign that he wants to believe the president who ended the wars including his own surge in afghanistan. the president was bringing the troops home. i think there's an understanding at the pentagon that the era of expeditionary wars a la iraq and afghanistan is over. the question is who is left behind as american military power pulls back? and the administration has signaled strongly that it-- it-- it is prepared to go to a zero number of troops in afghanistan post-2014 just as ended up being the case in iraq whatever precisely it wanted. and '05 just been out in the
11:19 pm
region visiting india and saudi arabia, and there is a lot of uncertainty about what this means for powers in the region how the vacuum in afghanistan will be filled. whether the taliban will be resurgent, whether the government in afghanistan that will succeed president karzai's will be able to stand. those issues when you push the white house on them i tend to get people saying, look, we're ending these wars. we'll dole with what comes down the road. but we're not going to be deterred from our course. they think thos crucial strategically. they think they're in the business of reestablishing america's image abroad pre-9/11. reestablishing america's alliances and they think they've done that in the first four years and they want to continue it. and finally the thing that is at the center of the white house's strategic thinking is this idea of rebalancing
11:20 pm
american power toward asia to dole with the rising china. they don't want anything to get in the way of that even to the point of leaving what a lot of people fear is a vacuum of american power in areas that traditionally have been crucial to have american power like the middle east. >> rose: but there's also, when you lock at who is happening in mali and you lock at sort of things that are happening in africa and the emergence of al qaeda there a new threat. how do they see that motorcyclele? >>michael? >> i think there are different perspectives in the administration. one thing that was striking about secretary clinton's testimony is she did emphasize the dangers of al qaeda-affiliated groups in africa like al qaeda and the islamic magreb one of the mali-based groups. i think the white house is less proactive but they've come along
11:21 pm
after the french tock action there. i do think that the pivot is an interesting idea conceptually but i don't think there's going to be much reality to it as long as the iranian question remains unresolved. as long as there's a prospect of a military confrontation with iran, either on the part israelis or possibly on the part of the united states if the negotiations don't get anywhere and right now there are no negotiation. i don't stow realistically how theious can swing military resources to the pacific and in fact it's not in any significant way at this point. >> rose: who is going on in iran in terms of the debate about nuclear inside iran? >> obviously iran is a-- an opaque place for americans but from people i talk to, the first thing you'd say is that where iran had many diffuse competing
11:22 pm
centers of power several years ago, ayatollah khomeini is totally in charge today and he has not given any signal, that i am aware of, that he is prepared for the kind of engagement the u.s., before the election, was expecting would follow the election, would follow an obama victory. that hasn't happened. and so i think michael is rote that we're heading toward a period in which confrontation, even military confrontation, is possible. woe keep waiting for this diplomatic moment. certainly, senator kerry if he becomes secretary of state, has been-- has been thinking about this for-- for years and i think that would be at at the very top of his agenda. how do you explore a way to negotiated conversation. the sphriens tehran so far as we can read them, sanctions are
11:23 pm
tough, but they don't seem to be changing iranian behavior yet. >> rose: is that your assessment, michael, even though the sanctions have been effective to a degree there have not been changed behavior and their timeexploin their timetable moves apace? >> yes i basically agree with that. i think when the administration says the iran policy is effective what, they mean is they've lined up support for sanctions and they're hurting the iranian economy. but the-- unfortunately, the-- what hasn't yet happened is it hasn't slowed down the program to a point where people can be comfortable about it and there doesn't yet appear to be a significant diplomatic opening. >> rose: and the centrifuges are spinning. >> the next six to eight months people say will be an important time. it will be after the israeli election, which was yesterday, and before, perhaps the iranian election. so poem stoims say the next six months are decisive but perhaps
11:24 pm
these six months may actually be disoifs. >> rose: what is amazing to me-- if you think about it you had the israeli election, the u.s. election, the choice change in power, and you have iranian elections coming up. so it suggests that, you know no matter how debates go, there are always new forces entering them which can have now agendas and new responsibilities and you never know how any of that might change and that's what makes it so interesting. thank you, michael gordon. thank you david ignatius. >> thanks, charlie,. >> thank you. israel went to the polls yesterday "p" benjamin netanyahu'slitude party lost major ground joining me is
11:25 pm
dennis ross, counselor at the washington institute for nearest policy. david remnick, editor of the "the new yorker" magazine. he wrote last week's cover story. and mort zuckerman editor in chief of "us news & world report." and the owner of the "new york daily news." and i am pleased to have all of them on this program. so my question is to each of you, what happened? >> well the yair lapid victory, or near victory, or coming in second i think is a reaction-- he's a centrist.
11:26 pm
he's not center-left. he sits on kind of the right side of the center. he's a tv figure-- no offense. he entered politics last year. he resigned from channel 2 last year. his father was a journalist and politician as well. and i think tel aviv and like-minded coastal sees. >> rose: there was a big turnout? >> woke up because they feared a real right-wing-- not just the hard right of the likud but also the this other party and somes religious parties were going to form an even more right-wing coalition and people who feared the increasing isolation of israel, political isolation, and economic isolation, who fear things like boycotts -- >> rose: and who fear the end of the possibility of a two. state solution. >> as a result, a distancing from europe and the united states, all those people went to the polls in much greater number than they would have and gave these centrists -- and some of the left-wing party more votes
11:27 pm
than they had any reason to expect? >> rose: port, what happened. >> i think the appeal of bebe has diminished. what he was proposing and the way he was promoting them did not work well. there was a diminution of the role he was going to play particularly in an election campaign. he was the odds-on favorite but in the last several months, what he is proposing is not working. it is part of what you were saying before, he was alienating a lot of people, including the president of the united states, which doesn't sit well in israel, no matter what people say. >> rose: especially if he's he's re-elected. >> rells expect the israeli prime minister to have a good relationship with the american president prt. it's lost on no one the relationship between bebe and obama is cool and distant. >> rose: there is the factor did netanyahu campaign on issues concern to most reallies, focusing more on iran which is a concern but by not including
11:28 pm
a whole range of economic issues, and all the military role of the ultra-orthodox. >> yes, i think the ultra-orthodox and their place in israeli society is now come under a very different kind of scrut 93, and people are coming to a very different conclusion that a lot of the particular rights that they have, both what they do and what they don't do, are just not fair, and certainly that was what was important in the emergence of this party because they were saying "look, we've got to have the orthodox play their fair share pay a fair share and play a fair share in what's going "o." >> we should probably give some background. it's a complicated picture. there are two extremes of orthodox in the pick. there are religious nationalists who live in the settlements and live throughout israel why where-- if you'll forgive me-- where it matters. and they go to the military in increasing numbers. that's represented by
11:29 pm
neftali bennett. the others were allowed to control matters of religion and birth and marriage and it was thought by ben gurren that these people who were already small in number and fairly isolated would eventually play themselves out. the early secular zionists thought the ultra-orttext would kind of die out. ey didn't. they have lots of babies and their families grow and grow, and, "therefore, their proportion is larger. they don't serve in the military. they get enormous subsidies so that their kids can just study and not entertain mainstream of society. and main stream israeli society-- not just secular society-- is tired of that. they're tired of footing the bill. they're tired of seeing their kids serve in the military and not their kids. and yair lapid exemplifies it. >> rose: dennis, weigh in now having listened to both of them, and you've spent as much time as anybody i know representing the united states in the region.
11:30 pm
>> i agree with pretty much both what david and port said. let me just add a couple of point, one picking up on the last theme of sharing the burden. you you know, there is a joke that has gone around israel for some time that a third of the people pay taxes, a third of the people work, and a third of the people go in the army and the problem is they're all the same third. ( laughter ) what you actually found now is people saying enough. the fact is you had-- bebe made a deal with kadima, created a broadbased government, and they were going to resolve this question of the haridi serving in the military and what the fair burden would be. and a commission worked out something and in the end, the prime minister decided that he felt that the character of that deal just was not one he could live with. i think that came back to haunt him in a fairly big way. so i think, number one, it's sharing the burden in a sense that if the country was going to go to the right the way it
11:31 pm
appeared to be, there was going to be no sharing of the burden. secondly, i think there is a sense of the main stream in israel feeling wait the character of likud, when benny baggan can't qualify for the list, when dan meriddor can't qualify for the list the people who are on that list, they're not us. and yet they're going to run the country? so i think you had the main stream reacting to that as well. it's not only sharing the burden it's also what is our identity. the third point i think relates more to the issue of ensuring that only that israel isn't isolated but one other point-- israel should attain its jewish zionist, character. the zionist ethic is to be jewish and democratic. when you listened to bennett what was most important to him was to control 60% of the west bank and to an exit and pretty much wish away the demographic problem. and here again i think the main stream in israel reacted to that. that's why you see a loss in
11:32 pm
terms of the right's vote but also why you see the emergence of someone like lapid, who i think made all these issues a kind of theme. and it's interesting, the votes really went to him and much less to labor. shelly yachimovich ran mostly on the socioeconomic issue which in fact resonated with many but so did lapid and he focused more on sharing the burden and i think that's why he tended to benefit more than anyone glels i want to first ask what caned coalition of bebe put together? >> he will have to react to the election results and it will be more moderate and it will include lapid, i think. i don't want us to be deluded and think because yair lapid somehow got an out-outsized amount of votes that suddenly the country has moved dramatically to the left. it has not. it has not. and i think we need to have a
11:33 pm
more tragic sense of what's going on in terms of the palestinian question, which is the one that concerns us the most. certainly, it is the top three of the big questions about israel. and it's not going to be dramatic movement on that at all. >> rose: even lapid says sade he's against any division of jerusalem. >> well any division of jerusalem, right of return is off the table, as it is for nearly all israelis. but you've also got a divided palestinian polity with hamas in place and gaza, way weakening palestinian authority in west bank. and, quite frankly, unless the united states-- and this is obviously, a question for dennis ross, above all-- unless the united states is prepared to make a dramatic proposal and to do everything it possibly can to bring these two sides together to end an occupation and to have a secure peace which is what is most at the heart of it for israelis and a humane end to
11:34 pm
this occupation for-- which is what concern cans palestinians, then really nothing's going to happen here. you're going to have two people on the other side of the wall with periods of conflict and a possible third intifada. the this election is not going to pay that. >> rose: ...who did do well and who didn't do well changes the negotiating stance with the palestinians? >> if i were in the white house i would think it was a less horrible result-- >> one of the things you said i'm not sure i agree to. i don't think the country was as far right as you implied. i think this election shows us this country wasn't as far ride rite. it isn't as if the new candidates and new parties had all this great experience. it's just that they didn't want what was apparently going to be the end, as you say, what some people were suggest you'd have a very hard-right government alls coot board and i don't think the country is there. they all understand, i think, that something has to be done vis-a-vis t

102 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on